• Lowpast@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    edit-2
    19 days ago

    The real issue is that we have a rapidly aging workforce and there’s not enough young people to replace them. With the average age of parents raising, the gap is getting larger. In the 50s it was 16 workers for every 1 retired. The 70s, 5:1. That number is now almost 2:1. This is bad. Very bad.

    Higher bar for jobs. Lower wage for entry level. Later retiring age. Higher need for migrant and seasonal workers.

    • LazerFX@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      19 days ago

      Aw, crapitalism will break because line cannot always go up.

      Cry me a fucking river. Humanity is a cancer, and we need to be about half our current population. Yeah, we’re not gonna like it when we drop that population. Our kids, my daughter, are going to have it fucking tough. But if we want to survive long term… We gotta stop.

        • angrystego@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          18 days ago

          Says Thanos who did nothing wrong. Really though, it’s not rocket science to understand eternal growth is not a viable strategy. It’s also obvious that the number of people on the Earth now is too much if we want them all to live a comfortable life and not to destroy the planet at the same time. How big should the population be to make things ok longterm? That is open to discussion and depends on many factors, so there’s not just one correct answer.

          • FlorianSimon@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            18 days ago

            I’m not advocating for eternal growth. But the malthusians claim the population should be smaller without telling you how smaller or how to reach the objective. It’s candid ideology that’s not very different from eugenics if brought to its logical conclusion. They tell you some will suffer, but they don’t tell you who and how. The answer is of course: some poor schmuck that’s not them.

            And they fail to realize that, even after the population’s been reduced, we’d still suffer from the same issues we’re facing now because population reduction didn’t address the real issue, which is capitalism.